My feelings are not hurt at all. I have said time and time again that this is a blog where I come to have fun.

If it is not fun for me then I wont be here.

“I suppose it wont be long before you go back to your childish game of ignoring me too now?”——————————————————————–

I believe sir, that you and your father pushed civility out the window LONG ago. Amusing how you demand it of others, but choose to not act accordingly. Very amusing, indeed.

And I would add, sorry the truth hurts your feelings.

I don’t see you trying to refute what Mr. Santigo said; probably because you can’t and thus find it necessary to change the subject. Also amusing…

People who live in glass houses AND throw stones should not be surprised to find one hurled through their transparent hypocricy, nathan.

You sure are whiney for a Marine.

I see the civility discussion has gone out the window.

I suppose it wont be long before you go back to your childish game of ignoring me too now?

Thanks for posting that article.

It’s a fact that the loss of the largest number of jobs in 2001-2003 and the number of jobs needed each month, no matter what, are major determining factors in figuring the unemployment. About a year or so ago, those monthly numbers of new jobs were not even close to what they needed to be for employment/unemployment to level out. This has been stated countless times in the media, if only people would bothered to look at the figures, instead of read the headlines and morph them into what they want to believe.

Bottom line: During Bush’s time in office, there have not been enough jobs created to make up for those lost at the beginning of his first term AND to keep up with the number of jobs that need to be created each month since then.

Did I just repeat myself? Duh

Thank you, Mr. Santiago.

Is it your contention that only liberals are saying that the economy stinks?? Congratulations, you have now uttered THE most nonsensical stupidity ever uttered on this blog. You implied that I am a liberal so it must be so! rotflmosrfao

I won’t waste my time trying to explain basic economics to you because you only seem able to regurgitate the dreck that you hear from radio pudgy and fox “news”. Suffice it to say that government stats are crooked. The cretins had to stop reporting M3 because they have been printing so much money they feared a hyperinflation. In the end, it will not matter because they can only delay the inevitable.

Read the blasted article:EconomicsRethinking the ‘Strong Jobs Recovery’ ScenarioBy Barry RitholtzRealMoney.com Contributor12/21/2005 7:09 AM ESTURL: http://www.thestreet.com/markets/economics/10258387.html

Job creation is crucial to any economic expansion. It directly affects consumer spending, and it’s one of two key factors determining the health of real estate (the other being interest rates). One cannot overstate the importance of job creation to the economy.

Lately, the White House and Treasury Secretary John Snow have been trumpeting the fact that the economy has created 4.4 million new jobs since May 2003.

Inquiring minds want to know: How legit is that number? How was it derived? How does this job-creation data compare to prior cyclical recoveries?

Let’s zoom in on the actual employment numbers and see what’s there:

First question: How did the White House come up with that 4.4 million new-jobs number? Is it accurate?

The answer is simple math: Measured trough to peak, there were actually almost 4.5 million new jobs created. In May 2003, there were 129,827,000 people employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of November 2005, there were 134,289,000. That reflects 4,462,000 new jobs. So the “over 4.4 million jobs created” statement is numerically accurate.

So if that number is mathematically accurate, what’s the problem?

As those of us who work on Wall Street know, you typically don’t get to pick your time periods when measuring performance. You especially don’t get to base it on trough-to-peak numbers. In most any series, there are more natural time periods, e.g., year to date, one, three and five years.

As opposed to cherry-picking the most favorable-looking time periods, job creation historically has been measured from the end of the recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research puts at March 2001. Another commonly used period is from the start of the president’s term (Jan. 20, 2001).

When we plug those time frames into the BLS data, we derive a significantly less rosy picture: From the beginning of the recession to last month, about 1.8 million jobs were created. Measured from the end of the recession, we see 3.4 million new jobs. None of these measures take into account the 2.6 million jobs lost from 2001 to 2003.

Over the course of four years, those numbers fail to keep up with population growth. The U.S., with about 275 million people, needs more than 1 million new jobs per year — between 125,000-150,000 per month — just to maintain the same percentage of employed relative to the labor force.

As with any data series, you can make the numbers better or worse depending upon when you mark the beginning of your time period, as the chart below of nonfarm payroll data since January 2000 shows.

So the answer to our second question is that the 4.4 million number significantly overstates the true jobs picture since the end of the recession. Indeed, if this were a mutual fund, the Securities and Exchange Commission would not allow such an advantageously selective timeline to be used in the advertising.

Third question: We know the BLS model is a bit quirky and has some warts on it. How “real” are these numbers, and how much is theoretical conjecture?

That’s a complex question, but let’s take a stab at it. In 2001, the BLS started a new numerical projection called the birth/death adjustment. This replaced a prior adjustment known as the “bias factor.” This new adjustment has been gradually phased in since 2001, and became fully implemented in 2003. That’s convenient for our analysis, as it was fully integrated at about the same time that Treasury and the White House have used to reach their 4.4 million new-jobs number.

The birth/death adjustment was created, according to the BLS, to capture job creation of new firms that is missed by bureau methodology “due to an unavoidable lag between an establishment opening for business, and its non-sampling methods must be used to estimate this growth.”

What the BLS does is estimate the number of new businesses coming into existence. It then projects how many new jobs these new firms create….http://www.thestreet.com/pf/markets/economics/10258387.html

Viva La Raza Blanco!!Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!!

I am looking at the numbers and they show an increase in employment.

So, if we are all making assumptions here, mine would be that because the number of employed is going up in correlation with the number of unemployed going down (taking into account those entering the workforce too) unemployment is indeed going down.

I know you would like to think they are just dropping off from the count, but if you were to actually go to the BLS website they do a pretty comprehensive analysis.

I’ll stop now since I don’t want to stop the liberal celebration of how bad things are.

The biggest problem in the US economy today frankly is that, for publicly owned companies, acting in the firm’s long-term interests is heavily penalized by Wall Street whenever doing so means that short-term losses must be stood.

Quarterly forecasts and near-daily analyst calls do more than just hurt long term planning, too. Such behavior rewards cheating, bullying, posturing, lying and generally promotes a business ethic of such poor quality that innovation and creative thinking are likely to be strangled then discarded long before they can be properly valued. Shareholders through the proxy of their boards of directors tend to stand blindly on their dicks while calling loudly for more beer.

Taking this logic to its extreme conclusion, Joe Williams would qualify as your neuro-surgeon. Now that I think about it, maybe in this one limited test case, it’d be worth a look.

Go back to market forces.

Cheney in his baggy suit, wired-up like a conniving Frankenstein.

Rumsfeld and his roll-over gut hoping it will distract attention away from being a grumpy old fart.

Rice, who has no business even being there.

And our own home-grown air-head Bush, wearing a Karl Rove victory smile about something he has no idea what this will make the next day bring. $10 gasoline?

The four stooges in living color and a dead body.

A Karl Rove photo opt.

Several polls have been taken across the country, both liberal and conservatives initiating those polls, and what they learned was that the majority of people said they would now prefer to see the Democrats handling the economy.

Stop blaming the Eagle for posting what has been a known fact for a while.

Viva La Raza Blanco!!!

Sigh. Intellectual consistency must be tough at the Eagle.

_It’s the UNemployment, Stupid_

I couldn’t have said it better myself. In fact I’ve said the same, though not as well, many times.

It’s nice to know that all isn’t as rosy as some would like to paint it.